Are you pro or con?
y deja que mi alma se- pierda en- tus riachuelos
para buscar la fuente que te robó de niño
y en un ímpetu loco te devolvió al sendero.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
Finfinder wrote:Whatever the sytem is the Democrats will try to rig it.
Godstud wrote:The Electoral College is VERY un-Democratic, @Verv .
Didn't Americans have a Revolution because of taxation without representation?
California with 40 million people, having the same voting power as less than a million people in Dakota, is a great example of this lack of representation.
Verv wrote:It is not a good idea to change the system, especially at a point where it will likely tip the balance of power precariously to the side that is already winning through demographic change.
I also do not think that any system becoming more reflective of the total population necessarily becomes more democratic.
Anything that is imbalanced and disenfranchises people's voices can hardly be said to be democratic...
Verv wrote:California has 55 votes; North Dakota has 3.
California has 18 times the power as ND in the electoral college. Of course, their population is also significantly larger, but let us remember that the state is designed as one of the intermediaries between the indvidual and the Federal Government.
If checks on power are not democratic... then, that's fine. I guess I agree with the Founding Fathers and prefer to round out my political system with a greater emphasis on checks than rote democracy.
Finfinder wrote:Wow the left is really feeling there oats right now. So power-hungry it’s not good enough that they only have to win a very small fractions of counties to win the presidential election.
Igor Antunov wrote:From what I understand, with further migration, US will become a one party state anyway, even with the electoral college. The Democrats won't be representing at least 40-45% of the country (rural areas, flyover states), but they will win every election even if they demographically flip Texas by stuffing Austin with California liberals, never-mind the influx of foreigners who tend to cling to cities and latch onto fake democrat promises of a fake welfare state.
Unthinking Majority wrote:Whichever party has any advantage or not via demographics change is totally irrelevant when it comes to democratic representation. Any new voters deserve equal representation regardless of their race/ethnicity or ideology or party of preference.
It sounds like you don't want certain people who you politically disagree with to have more voting power, even when they deserve to.
Yes actually that's exactly what it does. Democracy is rule by the people, rule by majority.
It sounds like you're in favour of doing just that. The current EC system is unbalanced.
If the POTUS was decided by popular vote, and this meant the GOP was less likely to win, this means they'll have to change what policies they stand for in order to attract more votes. If they choose to stand for policies that only a minority of American voters prefer with then they will get a minority of the vote.
Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't consider myself a leftist. But anyways, why should counties have to do with anything? Counties aren't people, and neither are states, so why should counties or states have votes? The only people that are people are people.
Why does there have to be some totally arbitrary "balance" between rural and urban, or north and south, or left or right? Who gives a shit. 1 person = 1 vote = 1 unit of power. Everything else is just undemocratic bullshit.
I am fully aware of it actually. Although I do no[…]
They exist because authority needs to be delegated[…]
Macroeconomists worry less about the size of the […]